A Politics for the 99%

By Marco Rosaire Rossi

The Occupy Wall Street demonstrations were remarkably successful in capturing the public imagination and identifying the need for a new kind of politics. Why have they floundered. Why did this happen? Was the Occupy movement stifled by misconceptions of political power? What kind of political theory do we need to advance a new politics? How can

• Language: English
• Publisher: New Compass Press
• Release date: Sep 17, 2014
• ISBN: 9788293064336

Marco Rosaire Rossi

Marco Rosaire Rossi is a part-time writer and activist living in Chicago, USA. Rossi has studied political science at the University of Illinois-Chicago and human rights at the University for Peace in San Jose, Costa Rica. He was part of the municipal movement "An Olympia For All," and in 2015, Rossi ran for Mayor in Olympia, Washington. Rossi has had previous work published in The Humanist and Z Magazine.

Book preview

cover.jpg

A Politics for the 99%

2014 © Marco Rosaire Rossi

ISBN 978-82-93064-32-9

ISBN 978-82-93064-33-6 (ebook)

Published by New Compass Press

Grenmarsvegen 12

N–3912 Porsgrunn

Norway

Design and layout by Eirik Eiglad

Cover illustration by Esben Slaatrem Titland

New Compass presents ideas on participatory democracy, social ecology, and movement building—for a free, secular, and ecological society.

new-compass.net

2014

Marco Rosaire Rossi

A Politics for the 99%

new-compass.net

Contents

A Politics for the 99%

Theories of the State: Marxism and Anarchism

Social Contract Theory: Its Influence and Problems

The Polis Tradition: A Lost Theory of Politics

A New Leftwing Generation

— Every political judgment helps to modify the facts on which it is passed. Political thought is itself a form of political action. Political science is the science not only of what is, but what ought to be.

E. H. Carr

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Eirik Eiglad and Jakob Zethelius for making this pamphlet possible; Denise Bagget for editing early drafts of this pamphlet and moral support; Stephen Engelman, whose class in political philosophy inspired the initial arguments in this pamphlet; Simon Conrad-Rossi, who has always believed in me even when I have not; and Fulvia, whose pluck and kindness will build a better world.

A Politics for the 99%

T

he Occupy Wall Street demonstrations have had a transformative—and quite possibly a historical—effect on America’s political discourse. The movement’s main talking point, that they represent the 99% while a ruling 1% runs the political economy, has become the first millennial political meme, and it has managed to change the entire parameters of debate around economic inequality. To discuss the divisions in Western societies as being cut along the lines of workers and capitalists is perhaps still taboo, and, to be perfectly honest, too inaccurate for explaining the totality of modern capitalism. However, the concept that there is a nebulous but very real 99% that has been both victimized and neglected by the extravagance of a 1% has resonated with people. It has tapped into their democratic and egalitarian impulses and has called people’s attention to the absurdities of modern capitalism.

In the terms of inventing political memes that can capture the zeitgeist, Occupy Wall Street has been a success. That is undeniable. But, what is also undeniable is that in terms of forming a coherent and organized movement that could radically transform or even seriously challenge capitalism, Occupy Wall Street has been a failure. Just as quickly as it formed, it slid away. The language of Occupy Wall Street remains, but the movement itself has become directionless and self-destructive. Within a couple of months all of the encampments were gone and in a few years all the activism that it had inspired has dissipated. What is left of the Occupy Wall Street movement has degraded into cliques of conspiracy theorists, lifestyle radicals, and novice activists consumed with interpersonal dynamics.

Where did things go wrong?

It is tempting to write off the Occupy Wall Street movement completely, and indeed, many already have. However, this is a mistake. Throughout history social movements have come and gone, and each one, in its own unique way, offers insights into the processes of mass mobilization and the possibility for a better world. Occupy Wall Street is no different. No matter how damning its current manifestation is, its initial formation was quite unique and inspiring. There is a reason why today, even though there is very little left of the Occupy Wall Street movement, that leftwing pundits still refer to it with a sense of pining anticipation. There is still a hope that it could be revived or that something similar will come along and act as a springboard for the revolutionary change that so many people are hoping for. For this reason, the question is not why did Occupy Wall Street end up being such a failure, but why did the parts of Occupy Wall Street that were successful fail to succeed?

In order to answer this question it is necessary to decide which theoretical lens should be used to assess the Occupy Wall Street movement, and how this theory provides us with the tools for guiding the energy of the Occupy Wall Street movement into a more impactful direction. So far, the traditional revolutionary left has presented two options, Marxism and anarchism, both of which are problematic in their influence.

Since the 2007-2008 economic collapse, Marx and Marxism has experienced a revival. However, this new found appreciation for Marx and his acolytes has been more in the manner of spirit, a shared frustration and disgust with capitalism’s primary characteristics, than a devotion to the actual specifics of Marx’s theory. Many Occupy Wall Street encampments had teach-ins on the Communist Manifesto, but for the most part it was the Manifesto’s poetic rather than its scientific aspects that resonated with participants.

Marx believed that the socialist revolution would be led by the industrial proletariat. Occupy Wall Street’s main organizers are young students, many of which have had little experience in the factory life that Marx thought would discipline the working